CHRISTOPHANY, The Fullness of Man by Raimon Pannikar. Orbis Books 2004. (Book Report)

Here’s a book with a jacket cover bearing (among others) a sparkling recommendation by a priest professor from a major Catholic university; a book with a glowing foreword by a Jesuit who considers it ‘a mission statement for the new millennium that can be understood only when read with the third eye‘.

Here’s a book that a major contemplative prayer organization considered both ‘challenging and crucially important’ and had scheduled a ‘groundbreaking teaching retreat’ to explore. (This testimony occasioned my purchase of the book -- 30 beans).

Here’s a book that I think is SWILL. (my opinion of course).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. John of the Cross wrote (Ascent: Bk 2, Ch 27, subparagraph 4.): “To deceive and introduce lies, the devil first lures a person with truths and verisimilitudes that give assurance, and then he proceeds with his beguilement. These truths of his are like the bristle used in sewing leather: It is put through the holes first in order to pull along after it the soft thread; without the bristle the thread would never pass through.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The book is bristle for the first several chapters with rich and uncontestable quotes from scripture and from the saints and mystics. Then there is added an abundance of Latin, Greek, Spanish, Italian and Indian phrases (typifying Madison Avenue’s use of snob appeal ). The author embellishes his text with references to the Gospel of Thomas (avant garde), mention in various places of the third eye of faith, cosmovision, the third millennium and much more impressing fandangle.

Mr. Pannikar maintains ; “Christophany simply intends to offer an image of Christ that all people are capable of believing in …”. [As opposed to St. Peter’s clear and unabashed statement that Christ is a stumbling stone for disbelievers in God‘s word. (1 Peter 2:8). The reader can now, desirous of maximizing belief in Christ by all people, buy in to Raimon Pannikar’s alteration of who Christ is]. As the book moves along, the author attacks the historical Jesus (Mary‘s son), slurs the church, preaches pluralism and proposes Christ as a type of icon -- a la: Jesus is Christ for Christians, Buddha is Christ for Buddhists, and Longnomenanda is Christ for the Hindu.

Some sample statements from the book:
1. “I underscore in order to avoid possible misunderstanding: Jesus is Christ, but Christ cannot be identified completely with Jesus of Nazareth”. (p.150)
2. “Jesus is the symbol of Christ -- for Christians, obviously.” (p. 151)
3. “..were he not the whole of humanity, Christ would not be Christ” (p. 140). [Methinks: how can Christ be the whole of humanity? The whole of humanity does not love the Father. The whole of humanity did not accept the Son? The whole of humanity is not Divine! The whole of humanity did not bring humanity into existence.]
4. “The task of Christians -- perhaps our kairos--may be the conversion--yes, conversion -- of a tribal Christology into a Christophany less bound to a cultural event.” (p162) [Methinks: What? Be less bound to the resurrection and still be Christianity?]
5. “We cannot pretend that Christianity is a gift for everyone if at the same time it is essentially bound to a determinate history.” (p.171)

St. Paul wrote (Gal 1:8) “Though we, or an angel from heaven, declare or preach something other than what we have preached, let him be anathema”.

The Pope, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, in a section discussing the second temptation of Christ, writes: “The fact is that scriptural exegesis can become a tool of the Antichrist.” and “The theological debate between Jesus and the devil is a dispute over the correct interpretation of Scripture, and it is relevant to every period of history”. [ No wonder the repeated admonitions of the Gospels and Epistles to be on guard against false teachers and teachings.]

I had written a couple of emails to the leadership of the contemplative prayer ministry regarding Christophany. One of the leadership responded, and thanked me politely for my concerns of course, and replied that he “found the book very helpful in mining the mystery of the Trinity.”!!! [Methinks: How can one MINE the mystery of the Trinity from Pannikar if he has a false understanding of the Son; and if ‘he who sees the Son sees the Father‘, then his understanding of the Father must be flawed; and if Jesus is not totally LORD as propounded in the first extracted statement I have shown above, then one must not be speaking in the Holy Spirit. Because, one cannot say Jesus is LORD except in the Holy Spirit, and Pannikar does not say that Jesus is completely Christ. Therefore he is not completely Lord.]

Josef Pieper, in his book “The End of Time” (1954) discusses a sham-sanctity that characterizes the Antichrist. He speaks of events that occur throughout history and prefigure the dominion of the Antichrist. He addresses the mass apostasy of believers and mentions the struggle that will center around Christ. He quoted then, in 1954, one of the same sources that the Pope mentions in Jesus of Nazareth (2007) , Vladimir Solovyev (1900) whose depiction of the characteristics of the Antichrist are insightful and worthy of consideration in these days.

Without prolonging this book report further, I would just say that the reality of the acceptance and endorsement of Christophany by the various priests of today (professors, intellectuals and contemplatives) that I have mentioned herein is (to me) scary-impressive in the light of consideration of prefiguring of end time events.

Anyway, who do you say Jesus is?

[My opinion: Save yourself 30 beans. Don’t buy the book.]


Pop-pop

Hi Pop-pop, (sounds like a toddler's attempt at "Grandpop")

Thank you for your review. I appreciate that you took the time and energy to put it together for us at Shalom Place.

This sort of slippery stuff, mixing and merging of Jesus with various other gods/theologies seems to be ubiquitous these days. Did you see our discussion on the movie "With One Voice"?

Like you, I always go back to what feels profoundly true to me: nobody can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. If they say every other wonderful, true thing but evade or dilute this point, I'm suspect of God's unction behind their teaching.

Yes, thanks, pop-pop (you'll have to tell us more about this name of yours at some time).

I've dabbled a bit with Pannikar's writings through the years -- enough to know I didn't completely agree with where he was coming from or going. The statement you quote, “Christophany simply intends to offer an image of Christ that all people are capable of believing in …” is the impression I had, though he wasn't using the term "Christophany" back then. It seemed that his theology was more about making Christianity palatable to a universalist perspective than the reflecting on the mysteries of the faith.

The biggest rub, I believe, is #1: “I underscore in order to avoid possible misunderstanding: Jesus is Christ, but Christ cannot be identified completely with Jesus of Nazareth”.

"Christ," as we know, means "Anointed One," and not some kind of divine consciousness that Jesus realized better than anyone else. Conceptually, he is referring more to the Word, than the Christ, and it is true that the Word is manifest in all of creation, including the great teachers in all the world religions. But to say that the Word "cannot be identified completely with Jesus of Nazareth" is to give the wrong impression. Sure, a shark manifests the Word differently from Jesus, but a shark is not THE Incarnation of THE WORD. You have to really spin things to get around the meaning of the affirmation in John 1 that "In the beginning was the Word . . . the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." In Christian theology, such affirmation can be made only of Jesus of Nazareth, not of any created being. He alone is "Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father" (Nicene Creed). If a theologian cannot make such affirmation, then it is safe to say that he or she is not a Christian theologian.

I'd never heard of him. I looked him up on Wikipedia. Turns out he died just a few months ago -- having been born in 1918! It looks like he is quite intellectual in his approach.

Shasha,

Based on your comments, I did go back and read the thread dealing with the movie One Voice. I enjoyed EVERYONE’s comments . Yours of 27 Aug @1:09 I liked very much.

You know, as I read more and more of the comments on this site I really would like to recommend, since many participants are evidently exploring Eastern Religions and in some cases with detriment and in others with confusion, that you consider reading the Pope’s works that touch on these areas: Truth and Tolerance; Many Religions, One Covenant; and Jesus of Nazareth.

I say this because:

1). I believe that the Holy Spirit is NOT STUPID.
2). I believe that the Holy Spirit did not anoint Joseph Ratzinger to lead the church at this time in its history without good reason. The Pope has a keen mind and is sharp at understanding the dangers and subtleties of religious pluralism that are rampant in these times, and expert at pointing these things out in those works.
3). That movie, books like Christophany, and the endorsement of error by many within the church reflect the duping that is going on these days. As I mentioned in the report for example, priests who are professors, intellectuals, and leaders of contemplative prayer organizations are embracing and endorsing new age thought that is contrary to our faith (as you yourselves have found disturbing -- based on what you have written in that One Voice thread and elsewhere). [BTW
that thread mentioned the contemplative prayer ministry I had written to regarding Christophany and which I have written to on other issues that lead me to believe they have now veered strongly off course and will be taking numerous good souls with them. And honestly, lately, I mull over the scripture wherein it is stated that God will allow folk to be confirmed in error. I mean how does it come to be that this is occurring? I mean -- who is it that sows cockle?]
4). There are many warnings concerning false teachers and teachings --warnings from Jesus in the Gospels and warnings from the Epistle writers. 2 Timothy 4:3&4 seems very appropriate for example. Testing of the spirits is essential. and per 2 Tim 3:16 knowledge of scripture is ideal for testing. But you have to read scripture. When it comes to the subtleties of pluralism and Eastern Religious thought scripture is not as ready a source or perhaps more clearly stated, the mentioned works of the Pope more easily reveal the errors, and forces behind the errors, that deceive one to embrace erroneous theologies. …………. Think about it….. priest-professors, priest-contemplatives, priest-theologians read scripture, know scripture, have been trained at some time in their lives with scripture…
and yet we laypeople and the magisterium disagree with where they are going. Why are they duped? Why are they duping? Where’s all this cockle coming from?
5). I have a sense that all this is more serious and focused then you might be considering it to be. Don’t know how valid that sense is, but it is at work in me -- (H.S.? or just me at an eschatological time of year?)

Shasha / Phil: Shasha has nailed my Pop-pop nomen. I love being a grandfather. -- have 6 and 7/9 ths. Younger (20-45 yr old) people at work enjoyed calling me Pop-pop and I enjoyed their affection. I guess it’s more a role than a name and truthfully I had considered changing it since there could well be associations with that nomen that are unnecessarily good (wise and kindly) and bad (stodgy old fart). But having already registered with Live Cloud I didn’t know how easily it would accept a second name with the same email address. I would use Greenjeans. Most readers probably do not remember him and the Captain. Back in the 60’s that was a nickname I got tagged with.

Derek: Per the book jacket, Mr. Pannikar retired from the University of California, Santa Barbara. My guess: A professor of theology. The Pope did not agree with his theology. His name appears in two of the quoted books.

All: Here’s a quote from Many Religions, One Covenant (p102) [in a section titled: Lucifer’s most subtle temptation. It is a quote quoted by the Pope that he considers well stated.]: “To try and make mankind better and happier by bringing the religions together is one thing. To pray ardently for the unification of mankind in the love of the same God is something else. And it may be that the former is Lucifer’s most subtle temptation, designed to frustrate the latter.”


Pop-pop

Hi Pop-pop,

Thank you so much for sharing those recommendations for reading. I have been wanting to take a more serious look at these issues, to know about them intelligently, especially as I am being led to understand my Catholic Faith more fully.

Thank God for good minds--infused by God's gifts of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by faustina:
...when i began the topic' One Voice' , i posted the opening comment from a place within my heart, immediately after having watched that film i posted here, excited to share. . I did not see the 'differences' of others experience of God depicted within this film.... , i saw only the 'oneness' amidst the differences... different expressions of the Light of God. If you go back and read, beginning with what i wrote in that first post on that thread, .you will see that the discussion quickly broke down into an intellectual debate.. which squeezed the life right out of the original intent of the post...that being.. the awe and wonder of Gods Great Light and infinite Expression amongst His people . From the writing of that first post, the topic quickly digressed from one of wonder and joy to a mind based nightmare that dissected the life right out of it.. . . . .... if one calls that "Truth" then i would want no part of it.....

Christine,

I'm sorry that it seemed I was raining on your parade of enthusiasm for that flick. And, I'm sorry, too, that my mentioning it again in this above context appears demeaning of your contributions.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, however, over the value of making distinctions and discernment among various points of view concerning who Jesus is, the Holy Spirit vs. kundalini, enlightenment vs. contemplative grace, etc.

I do value and appreciate your mystical experiences and what you've shared with us. As you know, I enjoy mystical experiences too and am not shy about sharing them with others (but not moreso than my experiences of brokenness and failures as they also have value in growing in Christ). At the same time, I see value in using the mind/rationale/intelligence. We need good, clear thinking to know how to love our neighbor as ourself. Seeing your neighbor as yourself doesn't mean you know *how* to love them (as we don't even know how to love ourselves), or even relate to them decently, even for 30 minutes sometimes...!

You seem to regard the mind as a kind of enemy. In my view, clear thinking skills don't negate mystical revelations one bit, and they are necessary for growing in love.

Christine, I think there's a need for opposite tendencies to have freedom to speak here. I deeply share your love of harmony, as Shasha noted you evidence on the "One Voice" thread. Phil and others have spoken many times about having an inclusivist view of the Holy Spirit's work among all people. But some things simply do not mix--we all are either God and we just need enlightenment to realize that, or God is an Other with whom we can have a relationship. It's not unloving to point that out.

You're good for readers here, I believe, to remind people to seek as much harmony as possible. But when distinctions have to be made, some critical thinking is called for.

I agree with you that the false-self driven mind doesn't get us anywhere; but the mind working in assistance to the true self is a creation of God, and as such, it's something to be grateful for.

quote:

“To try and make mankind better and happier by bringing the religions together is one thing. To pray ardently for the unification of mankind in the love of the same God is something else. And it may be that the former is Lucifer’s most subtle temptation, designed to frustrate the latter.”

That's a good quote, pop-pop, and it addresses some of the points that have been expressed on this thread since you posted it. I've understood Pope Benedict (like JPII and Vatican II) to affirm all that is good in other world religions and to also point out what is distinctive to Christianity. This is very important, but it's also un-pc because you can't do so without stating that Jesus is an incarnation of God unlike any of the other world religion founders (none of whom--Abraham/Moses, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed-- claimed to be, at any rate). The idea is not to denigrate the good that is in other religions, but to encourage people to come to Christ.

Re. the discussion of one-ness . . . it keeps cropping up on various threads. I think we can affirm the profound interconnection of all things (ultimately in the Word) and, at the same time, acknowledge basic distinctions between creatures, ideas, religions, etc. Whatever anyone means by one-ness, it cannot mean same-ness, nor some kind of monistic pantheism, wherein creatures do not have real existence/being. We can be and are separate entities, yet this does not mean that we are separate-ed, for, again, at some very deep level, we all receive our existence from God/Word, Who is the basis of our unity.

All,

I would just say, that I did not intend to put down people of other religions, and if you read my post I don't believe you will find that I did. I was lamenting that Catholic priests (that is, priests of my own church) were moving away from unity that the Spirit gives, are moving away from sound doctrine. Scripture (the Revelation of the Jesus we love and who loves us -- indeed who loves all men) incorporates doctrine within it. Truth as well as love. The Mystical Body has Christ as its head not other historical figures. And Oneness wasn't nailed to the cross. Jesus who is Love told us to beware of false teachers and false prophets. Why would love say that? Wouldn't love be somehow involved?

I believe that you can't bring Love and not bring Truth. Jesus is both.

On another tack: I had a super experience last May while in prayer. My heart felt like it was the size of a cantaloupe and began poundingright out of my body -- as if it was protruding 6 0r 8 inches beyond my torso. This went on for maybe 10 minutes. My wife came to my room while this was going on to aska question and then left. Through it all, I still enjoyed that pounding heart. I had the deepest feelings of love I could ever have imagined. I knew I could love everyone. It was wondrous. I had always wondered how Jesus knew which people to heal (since the scripture says that the Son could only do what He saw the Father doing). Having had this super love I thought that it would have been quite easy for the Lord to know if He reacted by sight of someone with the same emotive force that I had just experienced.

Christine, having had such moments more than I is blessed. Nevertheless, Jesus was rejected by men. Love was rejected by men. Truth was rejected by men. and Jesus was rejected by 'Oneness' -- somehow therefore. And our love who is Jesus, an historical being fully human and fully divine, informed us of future events in which His followers would be persecuted. Persecution goes on today. Oneness somehow doesn't seem to be stopping it.
The Lamb will return to crush principalities and powers. -- or so scripture states --doesn't it?.

Pop-pop

Christine and hidden others,

Just a few comments on your last post:

I have found Fr. Tom Dubay’s book : Authenticity, A Biblical Theology of Discernment to be an excellent and appropriate source of counsel and guidance on the difficulties and pitfalls that are encountered by many in their interpreting and understanding regarding leadings of the Spirit. I recommend it to all at this site. Among the many issues he addresses he, as did John of the Cross and many saints, clearly points out the primacy of [objective criteria and reason ] over [subjective criteria and experiences]. I know that in other posts you have dismissed getting into books and being ‘heady’ but books, good spiritual reading, are in the main our spiritual directors. There is much good counsel and wisdom n books. When it comes to mysticism as a real topic on this website, the books of John and Teresa should be being read -- among others of course. You won’t find better directors in the areas of mysticism and contemplation than the saints.

Relative to Eastern Religions and misunderstanding among us here at Shalomplace, I think in general , when we mentioned Eastern Religions we’ve been meaning non-Christian religions as opposed to Eastern Orthodox which as you say is Christ centered.

Relative to theosis and divinization, I know that St. Maximus is quoted as saying “ God desires at all times to make himself man in those who are worthy”. That divinization, I believe, based on my reading (of books -- LOL, sorry) attends those who have attained 7th mansion level growth in their relationship with Jesus --using Teresa’s Interior Castle framework of understanding the spiritual journey to transforming union. While certainly as Maximus stated and as John & Teresa and other saints have stated God is always desirous of bringing us to the max in intimacy with Him. Nonetheless, not that many attain that level. 5th mansion per Teresa is characterized by having had the experiences of raptures. Infused contemplation and accompanying gustos / unctions begin in the 4th mansion where many more folk reside.

Regarding ‘something going on on the earth today’ , I kind of agree with you. But you can be sure that the devil will be meddling in it as much as possible to beguile and mislead. All the more reason for being discerning and testing the spirits. I am excited, but I am also dismayed at the numbers of folk including priest -professors, priest-contemplatives, and priest theologians who are (my opinion) being duped and duping --being beguiled and misled. Maybe what’s going on is loosening of restraints on Satan, maybe it’s not, maybe it’s a new era of growth and fidelity returning to those who are loyal to Jesus, maybe it’s a separating, a sifting of tares and wheat. Maybe it’s the dawn of a new era of consciousness that new agers believe it to be. The real issue is that we need each day and in the days ahead to be watchful, to be sober with our enthusiasm. Drink the wine of the spirit but don’t let it make you drunk.

Fr. Dubay’s book Fire Within is another great book for contemplatives. He opens up understanding of John & Teresa in clear and enthusiastic ways. He is definitely in the contemplative’s corner and there with great counsel. Regarding the benefits on infused contemplation I enjoyed an image he gave saying “can you get to the moon by jumping higher and higher?” He then points out the benefits that the infused supernatural graces of contemplative prayer produce in our souls. God’s aid in taking us higher far surpasses our own efforts and gets us to the moon. (Ralph Cramden and Alice aside)

Pop-pop

quote:

Originally posted by faustina:
...i think there has been some miscommunication about the whole thing about what is spoken of in eastern tradition as 'enlightenment' and the eastern orthodox church speaks of as theosis (or deication or divinization) ....... when posting i can see how it sounds similar when speaking about it, but quite different in their view of deication or divinization .

do you know about the Orthodox understanding of theosis? i know a little about the east and enlightenment .. but not in any real depth of understanding. i would like to explore the differences with you.. ...

Hi Christine,

Oh, I think I see what you mean: that you've been equating theosis with enlightenment. That's a common error. I'll recommend Phil's thread on Theosis, right here at SP, if you're interested in that. (it's free!)

https://shalomplace.org/eve/for.../18910625/m/98910206

Here's a clip from Phil on that thread:

What you find in this teaching [theosis] is something radically different from the New Age teaching that we are divine [enlightenment]. Theosis as taught by the early Fathers of the Church is first and foremost a work of grace made possible by Christ. Through the union between humanity and divinity effected in his risen body, the Spirit is accessible to us in a new and deeper manner. It's a coherent, congruent, and thoroughly orthodox teaching, but one that, for some reason, is seldom taught in most churches. One has to dig around a bit to find it.
------------------------

Maybe you'll want to take up the discussion over there.
-------------

Pop-pop,

I've read (most of) Dubay's "Fire Within" and agree that it's a great way to begin understanding the basics of Christian union with God.

Peace to you,
Shasha

All,

I haven't really digested every post in this thread so far, but I was browsing around and ran into this review, and since I have read the book and had a different take, I thought I might respond to a few of the criticisms.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
As the book moves along, the author attacks the historical Jesus (Mary‘s son), slurs the church, preaches pluralism and proposes Christ as a type of icon -- a la: Jesus is Christ for Christians, Buddha is Christ for Buddhists, and Longnomenanda is Christ for the Hindu.

I'm not actually sure to what you are referring when you say that the author attacks the historical Jesus, but from the selection of quotes you pulled out, I think we disagree about the meaning of a lot of the book.

quote:

1. “I underscore in order to avoid possible misunderstanding: Jesus is Christ, but Christ cannot be identified completely with Jesus of Nazareth”. (p.150)

For example, I assume you pull this out because you read it as an attack on the historical Jesus, or because you think it means disavowing elements of true faith (i.e "Be less bound to the resurrection and still be Christianity?" as you put it).

However, I don't think that's what Pannikar is getting at at all.

First of all, all of the following depends on a premise, that being that there are elements to the common practice of Christianity which aren't essential to it, but are a reflection of the historical, philosophical, and cultural background in which Christianity first bloomed and continues to exist in the main -- i.e first the Greek culture, and later the Western European (especially in the Scholastic period). Trivial examples of this would be the style of music used in hymns, or the languages spoken in services, but more importantly the philosophy, the specific epistemology and ontology that underlie christian metaphysics.

Consider how much influence non-christians like Plato and Aristotle had on the development of Christian theology? Consider how Greek the doctrine of the Trinity is, as it's typically understood. "Hypostasis" and "ousia" were probably not part of the philosophical understanding of 1st century jewish converts to Christianity, nor do the scriptures directly outline a philosophical basis for theology in the speculative fashion that was so typical of Hellenistic culture. And so already from nearly the beginning you see Christianity as a religion being sculpted tremendously by philosophy and culture that were not originally native to it.

In the same way, Pannikar begins by presuming that just as ancient Christianity grew from contact with Greek thought and culture, it can still grow from contact with other cultures and philosophies. And more so, modern western philosophy and culture are already vastly different then in the 4th century, and for better or worse Christians are already adapting their ways of thinking because of the predominance of scientific materialism and other cultural factors.

To get back to the quote and point of (1) then, the point isn't in leaving Jesus of Nazareth behind, it is rather that Jesus Christ, as he lives and moves in the world today, can no longer be sufficiently described as a "1st century jewish man living in Palestine". It's not that this is not a true fact about him, as much as it simply is non-exhaustive. If the point of Christianity is to lead people to an experience of the Living God in the present, it is not enough to just present to them a set of facts about a historical figure. He is making a distinction between identification -- that is a set of facts that identifies an individual uniquely, and identity -- the essence of who a person is, as he exists. The identity of Jesus Christ is larger than the identification of Jesus of Nazareth not in the sense of saying Jesus of Nazareth is not fully Christ, but rather just that he is still alive, but he is no longer a man living in Judea.

Further, the idea he develops is that the historical story of Christ is richest in meaning for those who share enough of a cultural and philosophical background with it to fully appreciate it. But what of those of a different culture, or a less Greek way of thinking about knowledge and being? The point of the book is in asking whether exposure to other cultures might benefit Christianity now in the same way as exposure to the Greek culture enriched Christianity in the first centuries of its existence, so that Christians can learn to communicate the Gospel and truth of Jesus Christ to those people of other cultures more effectively, and less colonially.

quote:

3. “..were he not the whole of humanity, Christ would not be Christ” (p. 140). [Methinks: how can Christ be the whole of humanity? The whole of humanity does not love the Father. The whole of humanity did not accept the Son? The whole of humanity is not Divine! The whole of humanity did not bring humanity into existence.]

I think this may be a bit of a translation issue, but some context is helpful:

"Christ would not be Christ were he not divine, were he indeed not God...We're he not human, were he not the whole of humanity, Christ would not be Christ"

By "whole of humanity" here I understand "fully human", according to the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ is fully God and fully Man. There is no indication anywhere in the book that Pannikar intends some sort of monism in the Person of Christ, except in the symbolic sense of Christ as Second Adam, or Son of Man, which is already biblical and not pernicious in the least.

quote:

4. “The task of Christians -- perhaps our kairos--may be the conversion--yes, conversion -- of a tribal Christology into a Christophany less bound to a cultural event.” (p162) [Methinks: What? Be less bound to the resurrection and still be Christianity?]

This goes back to #1, but the point isn't to be less bound to the event of the resurrection! On the contrary, if Christ did not resurrect, if He is not alive today, then the entire enterprise of the book would be pointless anyway, given that the book is an attempt to describe an experience of Christ today.

Instead, the goal is to be able to relate the gospel to people of other backgrounds without depending on transferring to them the entire philosophical and cultural background of the western world.

I have probably done only a mediocre job of responding to these few points, and much more could be said, but this is a long enough post for now. Suffice it to say that I don't believe at any point the author intends to attack the historical person of Jesus, and like the leader you corresponded with previously, I think you may be missing out on some profound insights into nature of the Trinity and the nature of the relationship between Man and God in this book, because of misunderstandings of some of the books aims.

Regards,

k

Greetings, kenosis, and welcome to the forum.

Thanks for taking the time to post your comments about the book. I haven't read this particular one by Pannikar and so will leave it to those like pop pop who have to reply to your points, which are well-presented.

Peace, Phil

Kenosis,

Indeed, as Phil has noted, you have presented your comments nicely. Hopefully I will be as clear.

Here might be a pivotal point to start, because those people who like the book, those priests on the book jacket, in its foreword, the leaders of the contemplative ministry I wrote to, and yourself may well share the same underlying ambition you express below, an ambition or perhaps false understanding, that enables their seduction into Mr. Pannikar’s thinking. Certainly you are not alone in your thinking. (A reality that I find disturbing as I see it being embraced by many others within the church).

*************************************************************************************
Quote:
“.. the goal is to be able to relate the gospel to people of other backgrounds without depending on transferring to them the entire philosophical and cultural background of the western world.”
**************************************************************************************

The word of God has power! From whence comes this need for it to be more than it is? From whence comes this understanding that it is inadequate in itself?

From whence comes the belief that men and women in the church today must conjure up schemes for the word of God to be accepted (i.e. acceptable to contemporary man and to people in non-western civilizations)?

Does not this betray a lack of faith in the power of the word of God to challenge and change men’s hearts, a lack of faith in God inhabiting His word, manifesting His Spirit via His word?

From whence comes the belief that the church today has to come up with new novel thought on the identity and identification of Christ; that it today has a new task before it as Pannikar states of ‘a conversion of a tribal Christology into a Christophany less bound to a cultural event.’ ?

******************************************************************************************
You state:
If the point of Christianity is to lead people to an experience of the Living God in the present , it is not enough to present them a set of facts about a historical figure.
******************************************************************************************

Ironically, you made your post on the feast day of St. Francis Xavier S.J. who was responsible for the conversion of more than twenty thousand people of the non-western countries you are seemingly concerned about (India, Japan, China, Phillipines). Apparently, Francis Xavier’s set of facts about a historical figure were sufficient. That set of facts being Divine Revelation. The western world’s influence did not obstruct the power of the word of God(if there really is any such real hindrance from the western world that affects the heart of an individual from being open to God’s word). Today, is the feast of Fr. Marquette S. J. whose belief in the power of Divine Revelation did not preclude his efforts in Christianizing American Indians of another culture. And the Spanish missionaries to South America were not impotent in converting Mayans and Aztecs etc. And certainly the effectiveness of Xavier and Marquette and so many, many others throughout history cannot be accused of being the result of Conquistador colonial force (as perhaps some might want to imply was the cause of South and Central American conversion -- the nasty Catholic Church and its colonial henchmen.

From my own personal journey in faith and the Catholic school education I grew up in, I don’t recall being presented with anything other than the historical facts that surround Jesus and His Divine Revelation. I consider myself and my schoolmates and family to be living a Christian life. Many saints at early ages fell in love with God. I doubt that they had anything other than a set of facts (Scriptures) about the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

How much exegesis does one really need to have in order to accept the word of God?

Did many, if not most, of the Jews of Christ’s time who were witness to His works and teaching not accept Him for really any other reason than hardness of heart? Had they had better exegesis would they have had a change of heart?

It seems to me that there is a presumed, and frankly wrong, need and pressure to pulverize the ‘stumbling stone’, to make dust of it so that no one will trip, so that it might be acceptable to more people, so that it can’t bring division nor impel conversion. Something akin to political correctness? Something akin to a spirit of the Antichrist!

Again, from the book (p.9); “Christophany simply intends to offer an image of Christ that all people are capable of believing in, especially those contemporaries, who while wishing to remain open and tolerant, think they have no need of either diluting their ‘Christianity‘ or of damaging their fidelity to Christ”.

Me? I see no need for diluting my Christianity nor of damaging my fidelity to Christ. As for me personally, I am not open and tolerant of doing so. Gal 1: 6-10 works for me with no exegesis required.

In the interest of shortness of post I will stop here now. K, perhaps in another post I might address the difference in translation that exists between us regarding: ‘whole of humanity’ and ‘fully human’.


Pop-pop

quote:

*************************************************************************************
Quote:
“.. the goal is to be able to relate the gospel to people of other backgrounds without depending on transferring to them the entire philosophical and cultural background of the western world.”
**************************************************************************************

The word of God has power! From whence comes this need for it to be more than it is? From whence comes this understanding that it is inadequate in itself?

From whence comes the belief that men and women in the church today must conjure up schemes for the word of God to be accepted (i.e. acceptable to contemporary man and to people in non-western civilizations)?

pop, I think he might have meant more the theological and institutional traditions of the Church that drew from Greek and Roman systems. Surely we can proclaim the Gospel to other nations without packaging it in those contexts.

kenosis wrote:

quote:

Further, the idea he develops is that the historical story of Christ is richest in meaning for those who share enough of a cultural and philosophical background with it to fully appreciate it. But what of those of a different culture, or a less Greek way of thinking about knowledge and being? The point of the book is in asking whether exposure to other cultures might benefit Christianity now in the same way as exposure to the Greek culture enriched Christianity in the first centuries of its existence, so that Christians can learn to communicate the Gospel and truth of Jesus Christ to those people of other cultures more effectively, and less colonially.

The message of the Gospel does indeed come to us through a culture, but one does not have to be of that culture to appreciate the message. I will grant that other cultures might find a way to articulate their understanding of the Gospel without making use of Greek philosophy as the West has done, and I think that's partly what Pannikar has been doing in his writings.

K,

Continuing to address your comments on Christophany, in particular now, the point about potential translation differences:
*******************************************************************************
You state: ‘By “whole of humanity” here I understand “fully human”, according to the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ is fully God and fully man.”
**********************************************************************************

Before going on, let’s realize that we are not of the same mind on this. And let’s not play the ‘agree to disagree game’ since that is typically foolish albeit very popular. One of us must be off the mark. Let’s work that out as best we can. The ‘agree to disagree game’ enables many to too readily abandon the pursuit of truth and all that it brings and/or protects us from. As an example, contemporary American society (comprised of many Christians) in many numbers ‘agrees to disagree’ about the definition of abortion and freedom of choice, and has thereby enabled Roe V. Wade to become law and to remain law. Now in the wings is the possible repeal of California’s Proposition 8 concerning the definition of marriage. Many will ‘agree to disagree’ and not pursue truth. St. Paul said that ‘Sin gets its power from the law’ and American society has allowed and may well continue to allow the fullness of law to inculcate societal sin. Thus in the name of a polite ‘absence of malice’ in our ‘agreeing’ we enable powers and principalities to beat us up and rob us. Fifty million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade, victims to the politeness of many. Some laws are being contemplated to restrict the conscience of physicians from denying abortions. Prop 8 has consequences as well. Mr. Pannikar wants to tweak the definition of Christ ‘s identity in the third millenium. He woos mystics and women in particular as well as everyone else.

Truth is important; not for beating each other up with, but most certainly for saving each other with. That said, let’s endeavor to beat misunderstanding and error up and not each other.

Once again, I note that you have a sharp mind and have presented your comments well, and again I state that there are priests of sharp minds and holiness that find the book excellent as do you. I don’t. The book doesn’t leave me cold, it leaves me hot. It disturbs me.

In full honesty I have to say that I did not post the report on this book because I had read a book and wanted to have something to post on in order to entertain visitors to SP. I really deplore what this book propounds. I believe it is riddled with the spirit of the Antichrist. And I realize that may produce immediate groans in you and in many readers. (As Billy Crystal would say: “You know who you are!”).

So, K, Pannikar’s words state: were He not the “whole of humanity” but you read into them “fully human”. I read he intends what he has written -- the whole non-dual concept. That he should be taken literally here.

Let’s look elsewhere. On p.15 Pannikar states “For almost half a century I have maintained the proposition that every being is a christophany. It is a question not of converting the whole world to Christianity but of recognizing that the very nature of reality shows the non dualist polarity between the transcendent and the immanent in its every manifestation.”

Clearly this is another Gospel. This is abdication of the need to have the Gospel and to have it preached!

What blows my mind is that so many Christians like yourself and the priests who are in your camp buy in to Pannikar. When I think about the fact that probably only conscientiously minded Christians would purchase and read a book with this title it seems to me a terrible travesty -- that the cream of religious minded folk are being siphoned away! Here I groan!

I would like to play “Where’s Wally” with you (where Wally is the deceit of antichrist) and go through the book with further quotes, but it’s hard to do and keep posts short.

The contemplative prayer ministry that I had cautioned about this book a year or more ago but that were undeterred, is now steering many towards global transformation and subtle abandonment of Christian force in deference to what religions share in common. Ultimate Mystery has replaced Jesus Christ (in the name of focusing on what religions of the world have in common and how they can contribute to world peace. In the name of peace they are abandoning the Prince of Peace.

I am seeing the spirit of the Antichrist everywhere. I hate seeing it within the church as well as within secular society. Groan groan you say? Yikes! I say. (I believe the Antichrist will be an individual, so I am not saying he is here now). But staging for his appearance ? -- TBD, hopefully not. I am watching.

The blindness of others in the church boggles my mind and makes me think about the scriptures that state that God will enable the blindness to occur.

So, as originally stated we are not in agreement on this, one of us is off the mark.

Dibs from readers? (on the book’s statements not on the Antichrist -- that‘s a more complex issue and there‘s another thread for that topic)

Help me out here. Am I whacked?

Respectfully,
Pop-pop

pop-pop,

thank you for your posts, which have caused me to reflect a great deal further on this book and how I perceive it. In fact I find it difficult to even begin to reply to you because there are so many different directions my mind and heart want to go in, and I don't want to test your patience with thousands of extraneous words! So please bear with me and I hope to at least say something of use, God willing.

quote:

Here might be a pivotal point to start, because those people who like the book, those priests on the book jacket, in its foreword, the leaders of the contemplative ministry I wrote to, and yourself may well share the same underlying ambition you express below, an ambition or perhaps false understanding, that enables their seduction into Mr. Pannikar’s thinking. Certainly you are not alone in your thinking.

Let me step back a moment and try to give you a better picture of my motivations. In truth I have never been particularly evangelical, or thought a lot about missionary work or theorizing about how best to spread the Gospel in various parts of the world. My interest in Raimon Pannikar's works (and similar works like the writings of Abhishiktananda) has primarily been in the way in which he thinks and writes about the Trinity, the nature of the relationship between Man and God, and the interior path of contemplation that is prevalent in eastern traditions, and how a Christian might pursue such a path without ceasing to be Christian. I was moved by description of the Trinity in the book, and how he applies that understanding of the relationship between Father and Son to inward life of Man in general, especially in the I-thou (but the I is not myself, it is Christ!) I was engaged by a description of advaita that does not reduce to simple monism, which is a philosophy I cannot reconcile with the Christian Gospel, and thus could not adopt.

With that in mind, insofar as questions arise as to the precise intentions that Pannikar had in making some of the statements to which you object, I recognize that not all readings can be a correct reflection of the author's intent, as you say, and I don't know of any way that I can be sure that my interpretations are the correct ones. It is certainly conceivable that I have interpreted some things in a way that I find the most edifying despite the actual intentions of the author. Nevertheless, because for me this was not my primary interest in the book, I have not felt too much consternation about that possibility. Even were it to be established that I have misconstrued some of his ideas, and in fact he is advocating for things that I would not agree with, I would still find a lot of value in other parts of the book, as I mentioned, without adopting his views on all points. Further, if a slightly different reading of some possibly troubling statement can remove the trouble, and if the Spirit can speak to me in this way, I don't believe that this is something to be suspicious of. I realize that to you this may sound slightly too relativistic or subjective, but as an example, there are many sayings in the Patristic tradition that many modern Christians would find highly suspect, especially on the subject of Theosis, if not for the fact that they were uttered by saints of the Church.

To respond more specifically to your posts then:

quote:

The word of God has power! From whence comes this need for it to be more than it is? From whence comes this understanding that it is inadequate in itself?

quote:

From whence comes the belief that the church today has to come up with new novel thought on the identity and identification of Christ; that it today has a new task before it as Pannikar states of ‘a conversion of a tribal Christology into a Christophany less bound to a cultural event. ’

Phil answered this in part for me, but allow me to reiterate that I do not believe the scripture to be inadequate! The point, as phil notes, is that in presenting the gospel there is already more than the gospel being communicated, because it is inevitable that the presenting is tied to a particular culture and philosophical view point.

I would go further to note however that what gives the word of God power is that to which it points: The Word of God and the Holy Spirit! I don't believe it does a disservice to the written scriptures to note that they can never in finite form encapsulate the One who is Transcendent And Infinite. For that very reason the Church values the wisdom of its saints and tradition along with the Holy Scripture. For that very reason the Holy Spirit still moves in the hearts of believers, leading them more fully to the knowledge of the truth. I don't believe it is a heresy to say that the Spirit may lead them to develop new forms of expression of eternal Truth. In fact, in many ways these "novel" ideas are not new at all, but have only been set aside in the west as the dominant culture and philosophy has changed.

I can understand where the thought of "a Christophany less bound to a cultural event" might cause the hair to stand up on the back of your neck. Is he implying that we don't need to consider the Incarnation or the Resurrection of Christ? That would truly be unthinkable! I can only point out though that without the Incarnation and Resurrection Pannikar's book has no point whatsoever. From the very beginning the whole line of inquiry is predicated on the fact that Jesus Christ is alive today, and that we seek to find and to share an experience of him in the present. If it were not so, it would be meaningless to even bother distinguishing between Jesus' identity and identification, they would for all purposes be one and the same: a man born in Judea some thousands of years ago who was put to death by the roman state.

Instead, the "cultural event" in question is the emergence of Christianity as a system of doctrines that took place within the context of certain culture at a certain time. Again though, the goal is not to abandon those doctrines, but the form of expression that those doctrines take is not in every instance essential to the truths that they point toward. Does one need to understand and accept the greek concepts of "substance", or the roman juridicial perspective on slaves and free men, or legal adoption, in order to come to Christ?

We might also revisit Pannikar's own further writing on this subject, he writes on page 170, in the sutra titled "The Incarnation as Historical Event is Also Inculturation":

quote:

Some theologians have expressed fear that this christophany would make the Christ of history disappear in the clouds of a non-Christian gnosticism. Nothing could be further from the intention of this work...

History in the concrete is so important as to justify this sevent sutra, whose truth is often neglected when one thinks about the geographical expansion of Christianity. As a historical act in time and space, the incarnation is also a cultural event, intelligible only within a particular religiocultural context, that of a specific history. The Divine Incarnation as such is not, however, a historical event but a divine trinitarian act

This points again towards the distinction that Phil so helpfully elaborated on in his recent post, and clarifies that he does intend to forget the incarnation.

quote:

Apparently, Francis Xavier’s set of facts about a historical figure were sufficient. That set of facts being Divine Revelation. The western world’s influence did not obstruct the power of the word of God(if there really is any such real hindrance from the western world that affects the heart of an individual from being open to God’s word)

I am not well educated as to the missionary work of Francis Xavier, so I do not want to say more than I know here. Nor would I wish to denigrate the Spirit-led efforts of the men and women who have labored to spread the Gospel throughout the world, or to imply that they could not do so effectively.

I will only note that the Divine Revelation is not a set of facts! It is the gift of the Spirit, and the coming of the Kingdom. It is a living tradition and a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. It is not enough to form the appropriate mental concepts about the person named Jesus of Nazareth, or to state a mental belief in a doctrine about Him or the nature of God. These things are a start, but to truly follow Christ is only possible in the transformation of the Spirit, which is something beyond the mere set of facts that point towards it. We must be born of water and of the Spirit, and this is the distinction that I was attempting to point out.

In fact, I would suggest that this distinction: between knowledge about God and the experience of God, is the entire basis for the development of the book Christophany. First of all Pannikar seeks to remind western Christianity that true religion is not only a collection of true statements about God, but a communion with God Himself, and that this communion transcends all other kinds of knowledge. It is not that doctrines and traditions and philosophical expositions about God are of no importance; They are divinely appointed signs which guide us and instruct us. But insofar as these signs necessarily exist always in the context of a particular historical, cultural, and philosophical background, they must always fall short of the ultimate goal that is communion with God. It is towards this realization that Pannikar develops his ideas on identification and identity, and on the mystical experience of Christ.

Secondly, Pannikar asserts there exists knowledge about God outside of Christianity, knowledge that has been developed in the contexts of cultures and philosophies where Christianity has not previously existed. This will seem controversial to one way of thinking, in that Jesus says that no one can come to the Father but through him. Again though, the distinction between knowledge about God and the true worship and experience of God which can only be known through Christ. In this context read Romans 2:14-15, which states that those not having the law, who nevertheless act in the law, become a law unto themselves, the law having been written on their hearts.

Another example, and more directly relevant to this entire line of inquiry, concerns the theology of the Word, the Logos of God. The term "Logos" existed and had a meaning in greek philosophy and religion prior to Christianity. Is the logos of the stoic philosophers the same as the Logos of John's gospel? In the truest sense, no, it cannot be, for they did not know Christ, but just as Paul preached to the areopagites at the altar of the Unknown God, in each case Christians were able to find something true and worth preserving in the philosophy and culture of non-christian societies. In the case of hellenism, the Logos is far from the only point of assimilation.

So, just as early Christianity grew from its exposure to non-christian philosophy and knowledge about God, Pannikar suggests that modern western Christianity, which for the most part has forgotten Theosis, and has forgotten mysticism and contemplation, could gain by assimilating certain true knowledge and experience to be found in the Hindu religion: particularly non-duality and the path of the interior life.

And here I arrive back where I started this post: just as John incorporated the Logos of greek thought and so expressed it in its highest form, so Pannikar hopes (and I share at least this hope) to incorporate the advaita of vedanta, and express it in its highest form in the persons of the Trinity.

I realize that the above is very many words to address only a few of your points. I hope you will forgive me my verbosity, I haven't mastered the art of brevity, and I will attempt to respond more soon.

Regards,

k

Great dialogue! Thanks pop pop and kenosis for hanging in there with it.

K, I'm just picking one part of your post, here.

quote:

So, just as early Christianity grew from its exposure to non-christian philosophy and knowledge about God, Pannikar suggests that modern western Christianity, which for the most part has forgotten Theosis, and has forgotten mysticism and contemplation, could gain by assimilating certain true knowledge and experience to be found in the Hindu religion: particularly non-duality and the path of the interior life.

I think that's the sticking point: is Hindu mysticism really theotic, or is it another kind of mysticism? Is Hindu nonduality metaphysically equivalent to what Christian mystics call the unitive state? I think there are significant differences between what Hinduism is about (especially in its advaitic mystical approach) and Christian spirituality/mysticism.

Earlier in your post, you mentioned Abishiktananda. I've enjoyed reading some of his material, and one thing about him that impressed me was that although he tried to reconcile his understanding of the mystical experiences of Christianity and Hinduism, both of which he knew intimately, he recognized that this might not be possible.

I think what's lacking in so many of these kinds of discussions is a metaphysical anthropology that enables us to account for and compare various religious experiences. I've tried to articulate such in my book, God, Self and Ego: Discerning Who's Who on the Spiritual Journey. It's helped, me, at least, to keep a perspective. In the framework of that approach, I've tended to see Hindu mysticism as emphasizing exploration of the God-Self interface while Christian spirituality takes an Ego-God and Ego-Self-God approach.
- see http://shalomplace.com/view/godselfego.html for more info.

K, and you hidden ones,

We are often reminded to invoke the Holy Spirit before we read anything as a good practice for our spiritual reading. When we read the Bible which of course as Christians we know to be the Divine Revelation, our invocation of the Spirit would be centered on gleaning the maximum of what God wants us to know. When we read spiritual books other than the Bible, our invocation would be centered on both gleaning the max of what is beneficial for our growth AND of weeding out anything that is not from the Holy Spirit so as to protect us from being misled.

We can be confident that prayer of this type is in concert with God’s will and will be readily heard, because there are numerous warnings in the Gospels from Jesus and in the Epistles concerning false teachers. The Holy Spirit wants us aware and is here for that reason - as guide. God tells us to test the spirits and that many antichrists have already gone out -- here meaning the spirits of error, lies, deception.

And we know that over the centuries, more accurately over the millenia, the church has been assailed with false teaching and false doctrines (heresies). Had the saints maintained a ‘Let’s agree to disagree’ attitude and not fought against those heresies, the church would not be what it is today. Perhaps better stated, over the ages, the Holy Spirit in His desire to protect His Bride from error, inspired and equipped the saints to fight the insertion of erroneous understanding. The devil tempted Christ with misapplication of scripture and desires to thwart His Bride in similar regards.

Without raising your hand then, think about whether or not you (all of you) do indeed invoke the Holy Spirit before spiritual reading.

God said we need to have the faith of little children. He does not make things difficult.

K, you and I have the advantage over Phil and the hidden, because we have Pannikar’s book. Nevertheless, I would have thought that some of the quotes from the book that I had already mentioned in the previous posts would have been sufficient to support my dislike of the book and my dismay with the learned priests who, like you, champion the book.

Many of you who are parents, grandparents, teachers and relatives with children are familiar with the “Where’s Waldo” books. (I mistakenly wrote Wally in the last post). Testing the spirits is kind of like watching for Waldo within the many words you are reading. In the children’s books it’s looking for his face among many faces on a page, but in spiritual reading it’s among his words. Waldo is error, deceit, beguilement -- in short, the spirit of the antichrist.

Let’s for example play “Where’s Waldo” with the following earlier post’s quote: Again, from the book (p.9); “Christophany simply intends to offer an image of Christ that all people are capable of believing in, especially those contemporaries, who while wishing to remain open and tolerant, think they have no need of either diluting their ‘Christianity‘ or of damaging their fidelity to Christ”.

Where’s Waldo ? Here> “think they have no need of either diluting their ‘Christianity‘ or damaging their fidelity to Christ“. [St. Paul would puke at the suggestion of anyone proposing dilution of Christianity or changing their fidelity to Christ]

Here’s another quote from Pannikar: (p.25) “..here I have to correct a certain piety, eucharistic as well as christic. Stated in concise form, Jesus is not God but God’s son and, as son, equal to the Father because the Father retains nothing for himself.”

Where’s Waldo ? Actually, you can spot him in the above quote via sight -- and smell as well.

Where’s Waldo ? Here> ‘Jesus is not God’. [Here Pannikar denies the two natures of Christ. BTW, Jehovah Witnesses take this same tack and state Jesus is indeed God’s son, but will not state He is God].
[What’s this guy going to inform you about the Trinity if he has misunderstanding of the second person ?]

But if you were paying attention you could have smelled Waldo earlier in these words: “I have to correct a certain piety,”. This is antichrist style of attack by innuendo. Pannikar is here belittling piety -- Eucharistic piety in fact. The spirit of the antichrist is one of disdain for holiness. Piety is a reverence for holiness, holy places, prayer practice, devotions to God. [What’s wrong with the Eucharistic piety practiced by Catholics? We’ll keep our piety. Go somewhere else.]

We could play Where’s Waldo with other quotes too, but won’t. Look for wording like: monarchical and imperialistic and colonialism, and universalist pretensions. This is what is called yellow journalism. Subtle leading slurs. Pannikar slurs the Catholic Church (my church!). He also beguiles with ‘third eye’ elitist jargon.

It was interesting that you auto corrected “whole of humanity” to “fully human”. You thereby read what you wanted to read (or the devil wanted you to read) and not what Pannikar in fact had written., and had in fact meant, had in fact propounded for the past 50 years he says elsewhere.

K, I am not going to address the whirr of all your text. My recommendation would be that you sidestep addressing the incorporation of the advaita of Vedanta (whatever that is) and spend your spiritual reading time in our scriptures and our catechism. Testing of spirits requires calibration against Scripture and Magisterial teaching. You have to be calibrated. Kind of a spiritual metrology where scripture and tradition are the National Bureau of Standards. Also, Fr. Tom Dubay’s book: Authenticity might be very helpful to you! Especially in clarifying experience of God versus doctrinal knowledge

Also, please realize that experiences of God and mystical experiences are subjective in nature, and often subject to delusion and fiddling by the devil; and per the teaching of the church and her mystical doctors are always subordinate to objective revealed (public) revelation . You are misguided in your current thinking.

Again, you are not alone in this but in the company of learned others. (Alas).

All: On a slightly different but related tack, here’s what I see going on. FROM WITHOUT: Christianity is being attacked by secular society (via Prince of this world) through enmity against the church in media, in law (legalizing abortion) and threatened passage of laws concerning definition of marriage and exercise of physician conscientious objection to abortion, removal of reference to God in societal establishments (WWII memorial wording of FDR eliminates mention of dependence on God for example -- changing history to minimize mention of God). Spirit of political correctness obscures truth. America plays into the ineffectiveness of ‘let’s agree to disagree’ political nicety. Truth unattended. Moral decay etc.

FROM WITHIN: Waldo, cunningly aware that his seductions must be subtle so as to beguile sincerely religious folk who have escaped the net of secularism, promotes the dilution of Christianity and undermines the need for preaching the Gospel. He attacks the person and identity of Christ and maintains the church is arrogant and imperialistic to hold fast to the truth. (The secular world also speaks in this way). Waldo does this via Pannikar for one. He mentioned the need to dilute Christianity (implying Christians are too smug). Here’s what the contemplative prayer ministry I mentioned in earlier posts, now states in a recent newsletter of theirs (which is akin to Pannikar‘s recommendation of dilution): “ Your idea of the spiritual journey, of service to humanity, of the Church, of Jesus Christ, even your idea of God as Ultimate Mystery, must be shattered”. In other words: The Gospel is no good anymore. Take a Walk with Waldo he’ll lead the way -- Global transformation, world peace, divinization .. all yours. Let all the world’s religions rejoice in our seeming unity! (The spirit of the antichrist). One day mystical and miraculous wonders performed by plausible liars will tempt the faithful -- so scripture says. I hear many saying “Pannikar is really plausible“!

In the garden of Eden the serpent told Eve that if she ate the apple she would be LIKE God. Today, the serpent tells us mankind IS God!

Gang,

In these times, and in the days ahead, we need to be both His Sacred Heart AND His Blazing Diadems! -- and we need to be testing the Spirits. Remember Galatians 1:6-10!

Pop-pop (…. the Waldo smeller feller)

Thanks for another spirited contribution to this discussion, pop pop. And you're right: I haven't read this particular book. But I have read other Pannikar works and came away with some of the same kinds of reservations as you're expressing.

You stated:

quote:

Here’s another quote from Pannikar: (p.25) “..here I have to correct a certain piety, eucharistic as well as christic. Stated in concise form, Jesus is not God but God’s son and, as son, equal to the Father because the Father retains nothing for himself.”

That really is a confusing sentence. Jesus is not God, but is equal to the Father? Why, then, is that not sufficient for him to be considered God? Also, as you noted, it misrepresents the understanding of Jesus as the Word become incarnate (John 1).

quote:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

That's first century Christianity! Granted that the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet become solemnly dogmatized, but by Nicea (early 4th C.) we officially state that "Our Lord Jesus Christ" is "one in being with the Father." No mere creature can say that.

It seems that Pannikar's understanding of Christ might be drifting toward Arianism, which has been a storn in our side for a long, long time.

- - -

Re. the attacks against the Church from without and within: nothing new about that, pop pop. Of course, we ought not assume that every criticism of Church teaching comes with ill-will or that it is ill-founded. We need to listen and discern what's going on, and praying to the Holy Spirit is a fine recommendation to do before any kind of spiritual reading. Also, it's good to remember that not all Church teachings are equally important. Teachings about the divine nature of Christ are core essentials, however, and not up for grabs. Maybe there's a better way of teaching about the Trinity than was expressed using the tools of Greek philosophy, but it would be disingenuous to say that the core teaching falls apart without Greek philosophy. That's the sort of spin we find about the Trinity and other teachings these days.

Phil and pop-pop,

In the interest of space I'll try to respond in brief to several points all at once, without elaborating too much, and we can drill down more fully as necessary:

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
I think that's the sticking point: is Hindu mysticism really theotic, or is it another kind of mysticism? Is Hindu nonduality metaphysically equivalent to what Christian mystics call the unitive state? I think there are significant differences between what Hinduism is about (especially in its advaitic mystical approach) and Christian spirituality/mysticism.

To return to a previous analogy, I am treating this in the same way I would treat the question: "Is the Logos of stoicism the same as the Logos of John's gospel?". To which I would say: no, but rather the Logos in John is a christianized understanding that is not entirely identical to its antecedent in greek thought. In the same way, a Christian understanding of non-duality is not identical to the hindu understanding (just as a start a Christian cannot support monism or pantheism) but there is still value in acknowledging that the original hindu understanding points to something that is worth Christianizing in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
Again, from the book (p.9); “Christophany simply intends to offer an image of Christ that all people are capable of believing in, especially those contemporaries, who while wishing to remain open and tolerant, think they have no need of either diluting their ‘Christianity‘ or of damaging their fidelity to Christ”.

Where’s Waldo ? Here> “think they have no need of either diluting their ‘Christianity‘ or damaging their fidelity to Christ“. [St. Paul would puke at the suggestion of anyone proposing dilution of Christianity or changing their fidelity to Christ]

I read this as expressing that insofar as Christophany attempts to re-formulate a presentation of the Gospel such that it may be presented with less cultural confusions, it must do so in a way that does NOT dilute Christianity, or the Christian's fidelity to Christ. In other words it has to provide an "image" of Christ that is a true image, and not a distortion. You seem to be inferring from the language "think they have no need" that Pannikar intends to say that such people are wrong and do have such a need, but I see no reason for that inference at all. I see rather an academic way of expressing ideas that attempts to do so neutrally. That is, someone who is not currently christian would not have such thoughts, and such is the one to whom we wish to present our Christophany to maximum benefit. One who is christian does have that thought, and we wish also for our Christophany to be acceptable to him. I don't see a value judgement in Pannikar's wording, even if it could be a little clearer.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
“..here I have to correct a certain piety, eucharistic as well as christic. Stated in concise form, Jesus is not God but God’s son and, as son, equal to the Father because the Father retains nothing for himself.”

This really comes down to the distinction that Pannikar makes between the strict monotheism of Judaism and the trinitarianism of Christianity. The point is that the Trinity can't be reduced to a monad, and so in the strictest sense you can't reduce Father-Son-Holy Spirt to simply "God" without losing something, and therefore it is more technically correct to say that Jesus is the Son of God than to say Jesus is God. More technically correct still, I think he would say, is "The Son is the Son-of-the-Father, and the Father is the Father-of-the-Son". There is a non-standard usage of the word "is" here. The second part is there to reiterate that in saying Jesus is the Son of God, rather than Jesus is God, we do not thereby mean that Jesus is in any way inferior to the Father, and Pannikar makes that point in clear in many places. That in seeing Christ, we have also seen the Father, etc etc.

The reason he draws this distinction is that he is interested in an understanding of the Trinity that is neither One, nor Two. Neither monotheistic, nor polytheistic. It is not-two but also not-one. In the same way the Greeks would say that the Son is not the same hypostasis as the Father, although he is the same essence. if we use "is" to refer to hypostases, than we would not say that Jesus "is" God.

Whether you agree with the following interpretation or not, I can assure you that for me Jesus is God, but I also find value in realizing that the trinity can not be reduced. Especially as the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity says something also about the relationship that can exist between human beings and God through Christ.

It would probably take a lot longer to really do this justice, but the most important part is that Pannikar is discussing the nature of "being" and I'm reasonably certain that reading the statement to mean that he is implying that Jesus and God are not the same Substance (in the greek sense) is incorrect. Rather it is that Pannikar is deriving an understanding of the Trinity that doesn't rely on the greek conception of substance at all.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
Also, please realize that experiences of God and mystical experiences are subjective in nature, and often subject to delusion and fiddling by the devil; and per the teaching of the church and her mystical doctors are always subordinate to objective revealed (public) revelation

God is a Person, and thus Subjective, in the sense of being a subject. I think it's something of a misnomer to refer to the revelation of God as objective. It is testified to by many witnesses, and their witness is what is recorded in both the Scriptures and the traditions of the Church. And yet in every case they are witnessing to their subjective experience. the doctrines of the Church are not really "objective", not in the modern scientific sense of that word.

Nevertheless, I certainly agree that it is good that we have doctrine and tradition as a guide, and I agree that we have to be wary of deception. In fact only a cursory reading of the experiences that others have posted in this forum with various non-christian healers and gurus makes this point very well. I am also fond of a book called The Gurus, The Young Man, and Elder Paisios, which I expect you would probably enjoy much more than Pannikar's writings

But my point in responding to all of this has been that I don't believe that any of the brief sentences you have taken out of the context of the book actually contradict or contravene the doctrines of the Church! As I said before, I don't believe it's possible for me to ascertain for certain Pannikar's motivations with certainty. But I also believe all of my interpretations are reasonable and supported by the entirety of the work.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
God said we need to have the faith of little children. He does not make things difficult.

This is an excellent point. Let me only say that I don't think it's necessary to read this book or give any consideration to any of it in order to know God, or to be saved. I am not interested in trying to make every Christian suddenly adopt sanskrit terminology or change their way of worship. I don't think Pannikar thinks so either. I think in envisioning (for example) an Indian Christianity that is truer to the culture and history of India (without diluting the truth of Christ), he isn't proposing that western churches have to drastically alter themselves to suit an Indian's taste. He is saying that he thinks western Christians place too much emphasis on the letter, and not on the Spirit, and as far as that goes, I agree.

If I may make on further observation, at the risk of overstepping the limits of my knowledge (and I hope you will forgive me if I do so) -- I feel like, given the tone of your posts, that you read this book expecting from the beginning to dislike it, and expecting to disagree with it. You clearly are very passionate about defending the Truth, and you are on guard against the lures and deception of false Christs. I don't fault you for this. It's a good thing in general. But, psychologically speaking, if you begin from a position of suspicion, it's easy to infer motives where none exist, and to interpret language in the way that confirms your suspicions, while ignoring all the context that would assuage your doubts. You mention that it is possible to "read what you want to read" and so be mislead. No doubt this is true! I agree with you that such speculative works as Pannikar's should be judged in the light of the doctrines we have received from the Church, and against the light of the Scripture. But, it is quite possible to attempt to do so, and yet to end up doing so unfairly. Words are limited and imprecise instruments, and it can be easy to grab a few out of context and say "Look, they plainly say something wrong!" One could quote Athanasius' "God became Man, so that Man might become God" and accuse him directly of some sort of heresy. And yet he is a Saint of the Church.

Regards,

k

Another very thoughtful post. Thanks, K. I'll reply to just one part of it, for now.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
I think that's the sticking point: is Hindu mysticism really theotic, or is it another kind of mysticism? Is Hindu nonduality metaphysically equivalent to what Christian mystics call the unitive state? I think there are significant differences between what Hinduism is about (especially in its advaitic mystical approach) and Christian spirituality/mysticism.

- - -

To return to a previous analogy, I am treating this in the same way I would treat the question: "Is the Logos of stoicism the same as the Logos of John's gospel?". To which I would say: no, but rather the Logos in John is a christianized understanding that is not entirely identical to its antecedent in greek thought. In the same way, a Christian understanding of non-duality is not identical to the hindu understanding (just as a start a Christian cannot support monism or pantheism) but there is still value in acknowledging that the original hindu understanding points to something that is worth Christianizing in the first place.

I understand your point, but I don't think the analogy works very well. "Logos" is a philosophical concept and "advaita" is a Hindu mystical experience. It is precisely this experience that leads to the kinds of monistic/pantheistic explanations that we object to. It seems to me that it's easier to co-opt a philosophical concept than it is to transform a mystical experience from one kind to another.

Advaita is a different kind of mystical experience than Christian mystical experience, not simply a different understanding of the same kind of mystical experience. It ensues from practices informed by Hindu beliefs, and so is something of an experiential consequence of such beliefs. Similarly, Christian mystical experience comes through Christian faith. So to Christianize advaita, the Hindu would have to approach God through Christian faith rather than through practices informed by Hindu beliefs and assumptions about reality, Ego, Self, etc. In such a case, one would not come to experience Hindu advaita, but would be disposed to receive Christian mystical experience wherein there is no loss of affirmation for the existence of both God and the creature.

Alternatively, one could simply accept that there are different kinds of mystical experiences and just let them be what they are. That's my inclination, at least.

Hi Phil

I think it's wrong to say advaita is only a mystical experience. It's primarily a philosophical concept, in the same way that "dualism" is more of a concept than an experience

Advaitins seek a state of consciousness in which the philosophical concept of advaita is realized in their own consciousness, but the word has an intelligible meaning separate from the supposed experience.

K, from whence comes the intuition of the philosophical concept of advaita? From the experience, no? It's not so much that people thought about nonduality a la the Hindus and sought to experience it; vice versa, I believe. Same for nirvana, enlightenment, etc. The experiences comes, then the understanding.

Maybe, at a philosophical level, Christians can get some perspective on advaita. We would need a fairly comprehensive metaphysical anthropology to compare it with other kinds of mystical experiences, however.